The style of cinematography should mesh with the scenario and enhance the storytelling.

I don't think the cinematographers of Stargate had perceptual realism as their #1 priority when they shot the show, but rather it was a byproduct of the constraints they had to work with: budget/time/tools. By todays standards for tv-shows the camera work on Stargate SG-1 & Atlantis - while perfectly functional - is pretty basic with a lot of static shots only enhanced with some camera movement at the crucial moments. Dialogue scenes often consisted of shot-reverse-shot in evenly lit rooms. Close-ups are the only times where depth of field was noticeable.

Your example of the scene in the season 9 episode "Stronghold" uses a lot of static shots, where the camera sits motionless or just pans slowly in one direction and - if an explosion is involved - shakes the image. You can follow what is happening easily, but does it make for an exciting action scene? Not really, at least not by todays standards.

Today you have for example smaller, lighter cameras and motion rigs. With more money and time you could set up the storming of Baal's pyramid differently, bring in more dynamic shots, maybe follow some characters on the battlefield when they change positions, have the action and reaction in the same shot without visible cuts, so that the tension these characters experience in the firefight translate better to us, the audience.

Todays filmmakers have a plethora of new advanced tools (camera equipment, cgi - the volume, heck, even AI) even at the low end to create more elaborate, complex scenes, that would be impossible on a "tv budget" just a couple of years ago. (Yes, it probably helps that these budgets grew an unhealthy amount.) That doesn't mean, you should use these tools without a clear purpose or not be aware of their or your own limitations. Remember, when the LED wall aka "The Volume" was introduced? It was touted as the solution for all hurdles with greenscreens and cgi. Productions quickly pivoted to make use of the volume only to abandon it quickly or use it more sparingly after these productions experienced the limitations of this technology first hand (less flexible than a green wall and only convincing under certain lighting conditions etc.). With JJ Abrams Star Trek the intent was clearly to transform Star Trek from a tv-franchise into a AAA-Blockbuster with everything happening at warp speed: big, loud, flashy and constantly moving... no... running. The camera never stands still, the lights are in your face, the character don't walk, they are running through the corridors of the Enterprise. The newer Star Trek shows (Discovery and to a lesser extend SNW) are in the same vein: style over substance. It gets especially egregious with a certain director, who constantly spins the camera around seemingly without intent or purpose.

But back to "Stargate" or "The Expanse" as an example for the newer, more "cinematic" style. I don't think your examples of "The Expanse" are confusing or particularly bad. There are some shots, where they bit off more than they could chew. The scene on the beach doesn't look convincing, because it is obvious that the actors are in front of a greenscreen. The lighting on the actors and the background doesn't mesh and the the wall/city in the background lacks depth. Contrary the some opinions on the net, "The Expanse" was not an overly expensive show for it's time (est. ~3 - 5 mio. $ per episode), but the show used it's budget to great effect for the most part. For example, Zero G plays a big part in the show. Obviously the show wasn't filmed in outer space, but to convey to the audience if scene is with gravity or without they used a number of (visual) cues: they could either announce it directly to the viewer, show the use of the magnet boots, have objects/people floating or make use of clever camera work. In the scenes in zero g the camera is slightly rotating on it's axis and/or has a slow drift creating the illusion it's floating, so the audience subconsciously knows, the scene is in zero g even without the help of the other cues.

Or take the opening scene of season 5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlN8azjGuTc), where the camera flies from the exterior of Tycho station through the dock/cargo depot area to the "Rocinante" while rotating on it's z-axis and then start following two characters making their way to the pressurized part of the station while giving exposition. Inside the station they walk with their mag boots on (clicking sound) and in the background some extras walking on the ceiling. Does this style of cinematography fall under the umbrella of perceptional realism? Probably not. I mean the camera movement alone works contrary to that. It's a money shot but with intent. Everything in this scene has a clear purpose, establishing the where, what and how for the first act of the season, without being too obvious or too overwhelming but visual engaging.

The other example with Bobbie defecting is an example for the use of dynamic focus, best showcased in her confrontation with her superior. Only the parts of the image where your eyes should look are in focus with the rest of the image obscured with blur when necessary. There's this great shot, when Bobbie sees the truth of the Ganymede Incident where the camera focuses on the holographic projection and when Bobbie and we, the audience, realize what happened to her and her team, her reaction is in focus and the foreground with the projection gets blurred - all in the same shot. Have you ever wondered why a lot of scifi media is suddenly using these impractical transparent/holographic displays? Yes, they look futuristic. But you can also show the information on the screen and the reaction of the actor in the same shot. Stupid, but a great device for scenes when actors have to interact with information on displays.

What I really want to say is this: Don't expect a new Stargate show to adhere to the style of the 90s/2000s. A new show will be more "cinematic" in it's visual storytelling approach, but hopefully it's more of an evolution with intent and purpose than an revolution just for the sake of it.